This Is Why Men Have Less SΕX Than Women

[Forrest Adkins]

 

Another video from this guy, I think its pretty good insight into the dating situation for young men today.

I think the first point about dating apps is pretty good, this correlates with my direct experience. The guy I know who use Tinder are either getting all the females or none. There seem to be no middle ground, and most women I know use Tinder or simmilar Apps nowadays to chase after these top 10% men. It will be interesting to see what damage this will cause on society in the next 1 or 2 decades.

Edited February 10, 2020 by Forrest Adkins

[Forestluv]

I've watched a couple of his videos and it's curious how he is immersed into a male perspective, yet is unaware of this. . .  For example, he says "access to sex" is a female "privilege". Yet he is not seeing how the value he places on "access to sex" is going through his relative male lens. . . . When he mentions "growing a beard" is a male privilege, he doesn't place value on that. Yet when he says "access to sex", he is placing an enormous amount of value on that, through a male-centric lens  - of which he is unaware. He is assuming there is a thing called "access to sex" that has objective, universal value. 

For example, I know many women that would perceive the value "access to sex" very differently than this male. I have several female friends that don't value "access to sex". They have dozens of guys on social media propositioning them for sex on dating apps. How is access to sex a "privilege" if the "privileged" person doesn't value it? . . I even have a couple female friends that are frustrated that they can't find a hook-up or casual sex on online dating apps (even though dozens of men are sexually pursuing them). From her perspective, how is this "access to sex"? I have a female friend that has been looking for sex for four months (she has swiped right and turned down dozens of guys). From a guy's perspective she has "access to sex" from a female perspective, she does not have "access to sex".

To try and see it from another perspective. . . Imagine a guy in his 20s has "access to sex" with any female. With one catch - any female over 80 years old. Hmmm. . . does this still count as "access to sex"? Or the guy has unlimited "access to sex" but it needs to involve squeezing his testicles in a walnut cracker at some point during the sex. Would we say that this man is "privileged" because he has access to sex? 

[Forrest Adkins]

@Serotoninluv Just because women are only satisfied with top-tier man doesnt make it equal in terms of privilege. Its having 0 chance for sex vs. being picky. being able to be that picky is the privilege itself.

[Forestluv]

3 hours ago, Forrest Adkins said:

@Serotoninluv Just because women are only satisfied with top-tier man doesnt make it equal in terms of privilege. Its having 0 chance for sex vs. being picky. being able to be that picky is the privilege itself.

There are underlying assumptions that women "are satisfied with top-tier men". This is a male-centric view of what counts as being "satisfied" and what counts as a "top tier man".  This is correct from a particular male-centric view interpreting reality through a lens of desiring and valuing simple physical sex. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just a limited relative view. 

A man also has easy access to sex. It's easy for a man to get laid with other men. Does this mean that a man is privileged to have this easy access to sex? No, because that's not the type of sex he desires and values. That's not what he means by "sex". . . . Similarly, men have the privileges of masturbating or having sex with a pineapple. A horny dog does not have these "privileges". . . 

The view assumes women simply desire and value physical sex like the vast majority of young men do. A male is so conditioned into this perspective that it will be very difficult to perceive sex any other way. It's not fair to say "women are privileged" in this area because many women do not desire or value the type of "sex" being proposed. This form of sex not a privilege to these women, rather it is a hindrance preventing them from finding what they desire and value. As I said, I have several female friends that are frustrated because they can't find sex. And they have access to your definition of "top tier" men. Yet their relative definition of "satisfying sex" and "top tier man" is different than your relative definition.

To a guy this statement might make sense: "If I was a woman, the first thing I would do is go out and get lots of sex!!". Yet this is a foolish statement because it assumes retaining a male-centric view and sexual orientation as a woman. 

And not all women have "easy access to top tier men". I've been on many dates in which the woman considered me a "top tier male" and tried to "catch me" (including invitations to sex). Yet I turned them down, because I'm not primarily in "easy access to sex".  For me, physical sex is just one component of a broader and deeper experience of sexuality. If all she has to sexually offer is a vagina and boobs, it's not enough for me. 

 

[Preety_India]

 

A whole lot of women are just completely oblivious to the so called access to sex card that they have been given. 

Guess it's a phantom privilege then, eh! 

 

To have something you do not want is not exactly a privilege. 

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Preety_India

[Bill W]

The video talks about all the access women now have to "top tier men".

The problem for women is that they first need to survive being overwhelmed by the "bottom tier" LOL, who will swarm like bees around honey given half a chance. 

I guess the problem for many women is that the bottom tier is massive compared the top tier haha 

It's like moving into a lovely house with a peaceful back garden before you realise you are right next to main land railway line. 

 

[Meetjoeblack]

3 hours ago, Forrest Adkins said:

 

Another video from this guy, I think its pretty good insight into the dating situation for young men today.

I think the first point about dating apps is pretty good, this correlates with my direct experience. The guy I know who use Tinder are either getting all the females or none. There seem to be no middle ground, and most women I know use Tinder or simmilar Apps nowadays to chase after these top 10% men. It will be interesting to see what damage this will cause on society in the next 1 or 2 decades.

Dating apps are cucked. 

 "As OK Cupid has demonstrated, women rate 80 percent of men below average."

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2011/06/vox-at-alpha-game-dont-listen-to-female.html?m=1

Call it hyper-gamy. Call it the dominance hierarchy. Whatever you like. Its the pareto distribution. 80/20. The woman pick top 20/10% of men. Furthermore, the analytics shows the algorithms of apps are working against men to pay for boost. 

Before someone calls sexist or plays the victim card, post stats. Formulate thoughts and arguments. 

The point of hyper-gamy and women picking the man at the dominance hierarchy solvef the female mating strategy. Said male guarantee survival. The men acquired resources. Picking status, resources and genetic markers guarantee that survival of 1. Her 2. Her offsprings. 

OLD is cucked. Cold approach pickup ftw! 

In this era, i found ig better than apps. Any man who is a top tier man, mullti millionaire or billionaire can slip into any girls DMs. There's a biological and evolution aspect here. A woman exercising hyper-gamy picking the guy who discovered fire or teraforms Mars progresses mankind. 

From a male perspective, its dating on hard mode. Pickup is a game changer but it pisses off the female collective due to the potential of slipping past the hyper-gamy filter. 

People are inherently selfish. Women want a top shelf man. It is what it is. My only issue is that call out when Dicaprio decides to pull girls 18-25. Male feminists and women rage. 

All is fair in love and war. 

After years of pickup and game, I can pull girls far hotter and younger. Dicaprio effect on a budget. Clearly not rich, not got that status nor fame. 

 

[Meetjoeblack]

9 minutes ago, Bill W said:

The video talks about all the access women now have to "top tier men".

The problem for women is that they first need to survive being overwhelmed by the "bottom tier" LOL, who will swarm like bees around honey given half a chance. 

I guess the problem for many women is that the bottom tier is massive compared the top tier haha 

It's like moving into a lovely house with a peaceful back garden before you realise you are right next to main land railway line. 

 

The problem imho is click bait, victim culture, junk science and the promotion for women to sleep around when the data virtually guarantee divorce among other things. Source my Molyneux truth on sex series, gene warfare, rk selection. 

The elephant in the room is the men can slip into her DMs. Temporarily offer her fun. Cobra Tate wheeling Peterson daughter who left her husband more recently. In her defence, she never dated before and now her health is better, she's lookin to date up (as is her right). 

The counter balance is that, a guy like Cobra Tate has a harem. Wont marry her. She is young but you aren't forever. Its a dangerous thing. 

Men use to mate guard. Its degenerate now. Nobody does. Its strange times. 

Even before the science and data, men have known high body count and divorce + infidelity go hand in hand. People can rage all they want. The data speaks for itself. The same is with divorce and gender. 

While the options for dating is numerous, the fallout is pretty apparent. IMHO its savage on both ends. 

[Roy]

I've watched a LOT of this guys videos (and others like him) in the past out of curiosity. He does give some important insight about the reality of modern dating/relationships but it's clear he is extremely biased against women and he, along with his community is engrossed in the incel/red pill/MGTOW movement.

He isn't any different than most sexists, the only thing he does different is he makes the information easier to be consumed and manipulated by, by masquerading behind an image of being a "chill" regular guy. And proving some anecdotal evidence and a graph here or there.

In reality he just cherry-picks and teaches the small grains of ugly truths he finds about women and then goes out to interview pretty looking dumb girls to verify his own opinions. Or the other order, result is the same.

If he helps you that's great but don't rely on these people as your only source for relationship advice and worldview, go out there and interact with real people and make real connections.  

One thing I've noticed about these guys and these communities is that they are all generally low-consciousness people, pointing out flaws in other low-consciousness people. Their motives and desires are usually juvenile and selfish, even if they tell you otherwise. They want their cake and to eat it too, and if they don't get it well.............. All Women Are Like That..........

I also find it pretty hilarious the desperate and sad men that have COMPLETELY bought into all this stuff. They literally blame half the species for all their problems, talk about projection LOL!!

Edited February 10, 2020 by Roy

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

3 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

I've watched a couple of his videos and it's curious how he is immersed into a male perspective, yet is unaware of this. . .  For example, he says "access to sex" is a female "privilege". Yet he is not seeing how the value he places on "access to sex" is going through his relative male lens. . . . When he mentions "growing a beard" is a male privilege, he doesn't place value on that. Yet when he says "access to sex", he is placing an enormous amount of value on that, through a male-centric lens  - of which he is unaware. He is assuming there is a thing called "access to sex" that has objective, universal value. 

For example, I know many women that would perceive the value "access to sex" very differently than this male. I have several female friends that don't value "access to sex". They have dozens of guys on social media propositioning them for sex on dating apps. How is access to sex a "privilege" if the "privileged" person doesn't value it? . . I even have a couple female friends that are frustrated that they can't find a hook-up or casual sex on online dating apps (even though dozens of men are sexually pursuing them). From her perspective, how is this "access to sex"? I have a female friend that has been looking for sex for four months (she has swiped right and turned down dozens of guys). From a guy's perspective she has "access to sex" from a female perspective, she does not have "access to sex".

To try and see it from another perspective. . . Imagine a guy in his 20s has "access to sex" with any female. With one catch - any female over 80 years old. Hmmm. . . does this still count as "access to sex"? Or the guy has unlimited "access to sex" but it needs to involve squeezing his testicles in a walnut cracker at some point during the sex. Would we say that this man is "privileged" because he has access to sex? 

Great points. One can intuitively grasp (like Leos latest video) there is an equality in male and female "privilege" or no privileges either way depending on which perspective you look at it. Making it seem like there is an imbalance from side to side is a partial perspective. Hopefully If people are getting any value out of that video its that they shouldn't let external feedback validate them. 

[Danioover9000]

   I'll give my take on this. It seems like the man on the video is immersed in stage Orange thinking: he rationalizes this issue of men having less sex by first presenting himself as scientific and rational, and shifts the issues of decrease in sex drive to external factors like pornography and female hypergamy, and subtlety blames stage green groups (#metoo) for young men's decrease in sex. Interestingly, female hypergamy is actually mostly a stage Orange female based view on men(with few elements of stage red thinking/manipulation) based on physical attraction, material luxury increase(more make-up, dress, jewelry...), Out doing her female friends, ect...

   He hasn't realized yet that his view is very relative and changes meanings based on where you're at in the spiral.

   At stage baige, these things are insignificant, because the organisms here are immersed in survival.

   At stage purple, these issues are almost insignificant, except when there's tribal warfare at play. and seed honouring takes place. If you happen to be within a tribe, and you do have sex problem, their solutions include prayer to the sex god/goddess, and magical ritual and offering a wild boar's penis and testicles to suit your peculiar issue.

   At stage red, because of the increase in egoic impulse and selfishness, this issue is insignificant, unless he/she has this issue. Their solutions to this sex problem is, more sex! Get more women! And blame it on that suspicious looking man there, or that other woman, or anything else but you. Most solutions will be impulsive and selfish and heavily manipulated. They wouldn't care if this issue affects other but themselves. Mostly criminal and evil ways.

   At stage blue, if this issue effects most of the group, solutions will mostly be based on traditional ways, religious ways like abstinence until marriage, mostly Orthodox ways of dealing with the issue.

   At stage Orange, this issue would be treated using rational thinking, material ways like western medicine, and empowering the individual's self confidence through putting that man/woman into competitive situations with the hope the person pulls himself/herself together. If failure, then it's just them being lazy, or there's something wrong in their heads, or something wrong with their sex organ, or maybe this person's a snow flake or a LGBT thing. Maybe this person's a victim of those darn smelly hippies, they softened him/her up with their wishful woowoo nonsense! They're turning young people into veggies! And so on...

   At stage green, a solution to this decrease in sex is filtered through their values of emotional connection, love, community that has a wider circle of concern, humanism, higher moral development. They may include alternative medicine and methods that are unconventional and outside the mainstream conventional ways, maybe channelling sex/love related spirits and use of psychedelic ect...

   At stage yellow, this issue is dealt with systematically, taking a more holistic view of the person's sexual health/ young people's health, their biological health like the hormonal systems, their nutrition, their innate genetics, psychological needs and traits, upbringing, social conditions. They would solve the roots cause of their individual/collective problem, and work with experienced experts at specific fields in relation to the individual's issue about sex and various other factors, ect...

   At stage turquoise, the issue would be dealt with through use and synthesis of spiritual methods tied to paranormal and energetic methods. The solutions would be a fusion of high science with high magical means, and mystical experiences, through encouraging the individual/ collective here with this issue to integrate themselves, ect...

   Finally, even the words I write is relative to my and your level of cognitive development, moral development, lines of development, words with meanings tied to different shadow selves, and language barrier, as well as subject to the mind's ability to generalize, distort, distract, deny, substitute, blame, judge, demonize, idolize and conveniently forget information and habits that has very high chances of killing it.

   I tried saving a stray cat that lost a mating battle, and consoled it with my high levels of understanding, empathy and compassion, because cat lovers told me their kind and gentle cuties, and I agree too!? The cat, however, was having none of my understanding and compassion. It swipes it's paw left and dented in my right cheek.? despite the hurt, I now have a pet cat, and I still show my love and understanding to the stray cats that visit, including the swipes left cat, but at a distance.?

   Thanks for reading, and have a great journey!

 

[Leo Gura]

@Forrest Adkins You are making gross, self-biased stereotypes.

Your simplistic and juvenile explanations about women and sex are created by your mind to advance your survival. They do not accurately reflect reality.

[remember]

@Forrest Adkins is this guy in the video you? i‘m just asking, don’t want to be rude, but i sense some gay attitudes - he might suppress that still. i‘m just assuming. it’s also such a privilege that if you really hate women, you can always love men.

edit: the problem there though is that most men who hate women for being autonomous to choose also are homophobic, what makes it seem like it’s a general problem of hating others for being able to choose.

Edited February 11, 2020 by remember

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, TrynaBeTurquoise said:

Making it seem like there is an imbalance from side to side is a partial perspective. 

Yea, from a partial perspective the author of the video is correct - yet he's not seeing his view as a relative partial perspective. He extrapolates his partially true perspective to be universally true. This will keep him contracted within a limited view (that is partially true). In SD terms, this is a difference between Orange and Yellow.  

At a very basic level, I love blueberries. Yet I don't assume everyone likes blueberries like I do. Some people may detest blueberries. Some people might only like blueberries in a smoothie or on top of granola. Others may "sorta" like blueberries. This is easy for people to comprehend this form of relativity because there is no personal attachment/identification/survival needs to blueberries. It's much harder to see relativity with deep attachment/identification/survival dynamics - like with sex, gender, identity, religion, politics, race, etc. If one's personal wellness, identity and survival was dependent on blueberries, there would be online forums filled with people arguing over equal access to blueberries and blueberry privileges. . . And we would be discussing partial blueberry truths and how to transcend attachment/identification to blueberry beliefs. 

[Ananta]

Hmm, I just thought of something. Seems like when certain men are talking about women only picking top 10% of men or having more sex then men and so forth and getting pissed off about it. Basically, they are just talking about the young, hot girls...not any other girls. Do you care if the chubby, nerdy girl tries for the top 10% of guys? Of course not.

I mean, seriously, how many guys doing pick-up care about the mediocre looking girl? Or the girl who has a few lbs to lose? Or the nerdy girl with a nice personality?  I'm betting not many.

So, I'd say certain women like the ones listed above, probably feel that men are picky too and only want top 10% of women. If they are aiming for younger hot guys.

However, I see women and men, of all looks and shapes/sizes, together, dating or married, all the time. Take a look next time you're at Wal-mart! If you pay attention it seems most couples are with ppl of about the same attractiveness level. That might sound rude, but I don't mean to offend anyone. I just think that it usually works that way, mostly.

If you are a 4, looks wise and you are going after an 8, well, that person may not be interested, unless they get to know you and your personality.

I'm not directing this post to anyone specific. It's just something that came to mind.

 

 

 

[Derek White]

38 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

I mean, seriously, how many guys doing pick-up care about the mediocre looking girl? Or the girl who has a few lbs to lose? Or the nerdy girl with a nice personality?  I'm betting not many.

So, I'd say certain women like the ones listed above, probably feel that men are picky too and only want top 10% of women. If they are aiming for younger hot guys.

No, in my experience, most guys would have sex with most women, yes even the nerdy ones, maybe not the overly obese ones. 

On the other hand, most women probably would not want to have sex with most men.

Guys might not settle with them but they would like to have sex with them.

Haven't watched the video though, so ya.

[Derek White]

@Serotoninluv @Leo Gura So why exactly are men having less sex? 

[TrynaBeTurquoise]

39 minutes ago, Derek White said:

@Serotoninluv @Leo Gura So why exactly are men having less sex? 

Having less sex compared to when? 5 years ago? 10? 20?

Also how less of sex are men having and how do people keep track of this? Is this true for a self actualizing male, or just true for the average man who probably doesn't take care of himself physically, mentally and spiritually? I think the ladder. Maybe the rise of the internet and so a lot of men just stay at home on the computer all day gaming or what not, compared to 20 years ago when that wasn't a thing. Or maybe the economy and how much more young people need to work and go to class and that takes over their lives, leaving less time for pursuing sex? Just ideas. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Derek White said:

@Serotoninluv @Leo Gura So why exactly are men having less sex? 

The question itself is foolish.

You have no clue how much sex who is having.

How about you focus on growing yourself as a man?

[Roy]

56 minutes ago, Derek White said:

@Serotoninluv @Leo Gura So why exactly are men having less sex? 

I know you didn't ask me but I think I can answer your question;

Social media/Cellphone/Computer/Internet usage, and addiction to those things in general is the primary contributor, above all in my opinion. Even more than the social and economic climate, which I would argue the former listed technology changed itself.

People born in the very late 80's and early 90's all the way up until know have grown up and developed their social cognition and relationship skills in a world that is increasingly taking place digitally. For obvious reasons this can hinder and outright handicap people (and apparently young men especially) in their ability to relate to people meaningfully and be confident in face to face interactions.

1. Social media SMASHES peoples self-esteem and warps their view of themselves and how they should look/behave/etc. It bombards people with constant information about how others are living amazing lives (most of which are highly edited and or outright fake), and how they are not. Everyone's standards are ridiculous and unattainable because of social media.

2. Cellphones are self explanatory. They are amazing communication and utility tools but people are spending WAAAYYY too much time on them. Why talk to someone on the phone when you can text them? It goes without saying, any communication that isn't happening face to face is contorted because of lack of facial expressions/body language to read off of. That's why most young teenagers these days seem autistic. They have literally spent most of their lives using technology to communicate instead of their bodies lol.

3. Computers/Internet. Pretty clear. Why go out and get good with girls when you can just jerk off to the hottest girls you'll ever see for absolutely free with only the click of a few buttons?